Karen Lien1, Matthew C Cheung2, Kelvin K W Chan1. 1. Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada matthew.cheung@sunnybrook.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: As costs of cancer care rise, there has been a shift to focus on value. Drug wastage affects costs to patients and health care systems without adding value. Historically, cost-effectiveness analyses have used models that assume no drug wastage; however, this may not reflect real-world practices. We sought to identify the frequency of drug wastage modeling in economic evaluations of modern parenteral therapies for hematologic malignancies. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review of economic evaluations of new US Food and Drug Administration-approved parenteral chemotherapies with indications for the treatment of hematologic malignancies. The primary outcome of interest was the proportion of studies that modeled drug wastage in base-case analyses. If wastage was considered in primary analyses, we reported the impact of wastage on incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and drug acquisition costs. RESULTS: Wastage was considered in base-case analyses in less than one third of all publications reviewed (12 of 38; 32%). Of these, two studies went on to complete sensitivity analyses and reported significant changes in the calculated ICER as a result. In one study, the ICER increased by 32%, and in the second, accounting for wastage changed a positive ICER to a dominant result. CONCLUSION: Potential costs associated with drug wastage are considered in only one third of modern cost-effectiveness models. The impact of wastage on calculated ICERs and drug acquisition costs is potentially substantial. The modeling of wastage in base-case and sensitivity analyses is recommended for future economic evaluations of new intravenous therapies for hematologic malignancies.
PURPOSE: As costs of cancer care rise, there has been a shift to focus on value. Drug wastage affects costs to patients and health care systems without adding value. Historically, cost-effectiveness analyses have used models that assume no drug wastage; however, this may not reflect real-world practices. We sought to identify the frequency of drug wastage modeling in economic evaluations of modern parenteral therapies for hematologic malignancies. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review of economic evaluations of new US Food and Drug Administration-approved parenteral chemotherapies with indications for the treatment of hematologic malignancies. The primary outcome of interest was the proportion of studies that modeled drug wastage in base-case analyses. If wastage was considered in primary analyses, we reported the impact of wastage on incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and drug acquisition costs. RESULTS: Wastage was considered in base-case analyses in less than one third of all publications reviewed (12 of 38; 32%). Of these, two studies went on to complete sensitivity analyses and reported significant changes in the calculated ICER as a result. In one study, the ICER increased by 32%, and in the second, accounting for wastage changed a positive ICER to a dominant result. CONCLUSION: Potential costs associated with drug wastage are considered in only one third of modern cost-effectiveness models. The impact of wastage on calculated ICERs and drug acquisition costs is potentially substantial. The modeling of wastage in base-case and sensitivity analyses is recommended for future economic evaluations of new intravenous therapies for hematologic malignancies.
Authors: Daniel A Goldstein; Qiushi Chen; Turgay Ayer; Kelvin K W Chan; Kiran Virik; Ariel Hammerman; Baruch Brenner; Christopher R Flowers; Peter S Hall Journal: Oncologist Date: 2017-06-07
Authors: Lucy Hui; Gottfried von Keudell; Rong Wang; Amer M Zeidan; Steven D Gore; Xiaomei Ma; Amy J Davidoff; Scott F Huntington Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-06-22 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Scott F Huntington; Gottfried von Keudell; Amy J Davidoff; Cary P Gross; Sapna A Prasad Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-10-04 Impact factor: 44.544